Conspiracy theorists don't understand that this is only a coincidence.

In the documentary called Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist I found another coincidence. I didn't know that eleven hijackers received visas using a fast track
program which began in May 2001 called Visa Express from the US consulate in Jeddah where according to Michael Springman the CIA was smuggling Bin
Ladens operatives into the US for training in 1980s.

I think this is a strange coincidence because it fits into my desire to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. That's what those damned fool conspiracy
websites want people to believe. So they make free videos and documentaries hoping that conspiracy theorists will buy their t-shirts.

Part one

Part two

Part three

Clearly Mike Springman is confused about his experience at the Jeddah US Consulate.

If only we had real whistle blowers... But unfortunately all we have is YouTube videos.

That's what those damned fool conspiracy websites want people to believe. So they make free videos and documentaries hoping that conspiracy theorists
will buy their t-shirts.

You would actually be surprised at how much actual truth is out there. But it's not on YouTube, on for-profit-conspiracy hubs like AJ et al.,

(ATS being a user generated site is a toss in there barrel, it has its good and bad)

Where you really find it is by reading books of past people in intelligence, professors of politics, world affairs, etc.

There is heaps of information and a lot of it gets forgotten or drowned out by the sensational for profit nutters who make it possible for the good
stuff to get buried (where it needs to be to exist) and if you look in the right places you may just stumble upon it.

In many cases, truth is subjective anyway. If you think you are gonna change the world with some earth shattering secret, it just does't happen that
way. It always turns into he said/she said, until people forget what they were talking about in the first place.

OP let me start by saying to you that your desire should not be to believe that “9/11 was an Inside job” but rather a desire to understand the
history and truth behind the attacks of 9/11. You will not get this understanding form documentaries such as the YouTube links you have provided above
rather you should seek out history books written by people who have acutally studied the phenomenon of Al-Qa’ida and not some 17 year old sitting in
his bedroom with some video editing software.

I want to be clear I only watch the first 3 video’s, if you want me to comment on the fourth then I will have a look, but the first 3 are full of
historical inaccuracies and at some points is inconsistent and even contradictory.

At the start of this documentary the narrator appears to by tring to argue that because the media and government where so quick to point to
Al-Qa’ida that this is evidence they knew in advance. That could not be further from the truth, Al-Qa’ida where a very well-known group before
9/11 they were responsible for a number attacks against American interests and where known to have a advanced infrastructure. Even before 9/11,
Al-Qa’ida where considered the largest terrorist threat to American national security after the idiotic Clinton era fear of the CBRN threat. It is
therefore not in any way surprising that the first name on the list of suspect’s what Al-Qa’ida.

The documentary is inconsistent when it comes to the use of the name Al-Qa’ida which makes it very difficult to take seriously. Early on in the
first video it talks about how the group bin laden surrounded himself with during the Soviet Afghan campaign was called Al-Qa’ida. This is wrong;
Bin Laden did not create Al-Qa’ida until 1988 prior to that he was second in command if you like of a group called maktab al-Khidamat or MAK. The
documentary is also wrong in saying that CIA funds went to MAK for distribution because MAK was a fundraising and recruitment organisation, nor did it
ever send individuals to Ameirca for training. This claim if you take a second to thinik about it makes absolutely no sense, why not just send them to
Pakistan like all the other recruits. In any case, MAK eventually set up its own training camp and had no need for the Pakistanis’ or Americans. In
short the documentary is totally wrong about the role of MAK, just like Robin cooks comments about Al-Qa’ida are totally wrong, I would suggest you
go and read Steve Croll’s Ghost wars if you want to find out the true story of the CIA and Bin Laden during the 1980’s.

On the issue of the name, you will note that I usually write “Al-Qa’ida” rather than “Al-Qaeda” or another western interpretation according
to Abdel Bari Aswat, who personally met with Bin laden “Al-Qa’ida” is the correct spelling. Also it is not slang for “toilet” as the
documentary says, this is just a conspiracy theorist’s joke that got out of hand I think.

On the issues of the visa’s, these people where from Saudi trying to get to America, the quicker the better. The fact that they went to Jeddah to
get these visa’s on a fast track means nothing, I really do fail to see any significance in this.

Sourcing for this documentary is also very bad, on a few occasions I noticed that the creator has used wiki, and some other questionable source’s.
In addition to this has failed to provided sources for some of his claims such as the CIA promoting Poppy growth to get the Soviet troops hooked on
the drug.

He is also wrong to claim that the CIA created the Taliban, if you want I have a thread that explains this that I can link you to if you would like.

If you think about what this video is proposing in the wider scope of the 9/11 story it really is laughable. If you were to believe this video then
you are buying into the idea that in 1979, over 20 years before 9/11 the CIA starting putting this plan into motion. I am sorry but as a rational mind
I cannot accept this.

Ok, so, check this... What if... a 17 year old... read all those books... and then, made a YouTube video based only on the information in those books
you talked about with his video editing software...? Then would the truth be found in a YouTube video by a 17 year old blah blah blah etc etc etc? Or
would it still be questionable because it was a YouTube video made by a blah blah...?

I always thought Al Qa'ida meant "The Database" or "The Base".

All your base are belong to US!! Literally.

Seriously though, thanks for the spelling lesson. I always take a secret pride in knowing I am correct!

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
On the issues of the visa’s, these people where from Saudi trying to get to America, the quicker the better. The fact that they went to Jeddah to
get these visa’s on a fast track means nothing, I really do fail to see any significance in this.

To me I think Mike Springman is a disgruntled former government employee, if you think about these type of people logically the ex-government types to
start to “speak out” they are a inconsistency in themselves. If we are to believe them then we are to believe that the government was directly
involved in 9/11 but couldn’t kill off a couple of government employees who are speaking out makes no sense to me. I think if these people really
did have the “smoking gun” as so many of them claim then they would have died of a heart attack or shellfish allergy long before they even got to
open their mouths.

With Mr Springman specifically, he offers nothing in the way of any independent sources to corroborate his claims he says repeatedly that Bin Laden
was a CIA assets yet if one actually looks into Bin Ladens history it is clear this was never the case. He also claims there where over 100
individuals sent to America for training, like I said above this does not make any sense, assuming he is talking about during the 1990’s the
Pakistani’s could have provided this training without rising to many eyebrows. When you start to think about his claims critically they don’t
stand up.

On the issue of the Taliban I would encourage you to read my thread that I mentioned before, the CIA had no direct role in the formation of the
Taliban it is only one of a multitude of errors that I have highlighted in the documentary you have linked us to.

I would advise you to stop looking at the conspiracy shelf in the bookstore and start looking at the history section; if all you read comes from the
conspiracy side of things you are only getting one side of the story and a very bias one at that. I would strongly encourage you to objectively look
at both the conspiracy side of the story and the official side because on the balance of evidence it is clear that the conspiracy theorists are
wrong.

The point I am making about the 17 year old is that people shouldn’t just believe what they see on YouTube or read on Wkil, people should be reading
the books by the guys who are recognised as being experts in Al-Qa’ida, they people who have interviewed the intelligence official’s or personally
met Bin Laden not the guy who spends a couple of hours on Infowars with some video editing software. But what is more important as I have demonstrated
this documentary is full of errors and does not stand up to the critical eye, its not about who made it rather about its content which is mostly
wrong.

I am not going to provide a comprehensive critique of every video as I have done with the OP, otherwise I am going to be responding with huge posts to
each video. If anyone does have any claims they want me to comment on specifically then please feel free to highlight them, but I am not going to
discuss entire video’s other than the OP.

What I will say on the issue of the visa’s is this, why are people not talking about the Vida that was refused for one of the potential hijackers.

I did watch your video, without getting into what each of these former government types have to say what I will say is that the 9/11 commission did
highlight problems with the distribution of information. They even acknowledged the memo about Al-Qa’ida using planes as weapons and talk at length
about the attempt of FBI official’s to get around these legal and structural obstacles that are discussed in the video you linked me to. Also on the
issue of Able Danger, it was found in 2006 that at no point prior to 9/11 did Able Danger identify any of the 9/11 attackers

To me I think Mike Springman is a disgruntled former government employee, if you think about these type of people logically the ex-government types to
start to “speak out” they are a inconsistency in themselves. If we are to believe them then we are to believe that the government was directly
involved in 9/11 but couldn’t kill off a couple of government employees who are speaking out makes no sense to me. I think if these people really
did have the “smoking gun” as so many of them claim then they would have died of a heart attack or shellfish allergy long before they even got to
open their mouths.

HAHAHAHA oh boy that's funny..

I would advise you to stop looking at the conspiracy shelf in the bookstore and start looking at the history section; if all you read comes from the
conspiracy side of things you are only getting one side of the story and a very bias one at that. I would strongly encourage you to objectively look
at both the conspiracy side of the story and the official side because on the balance of evidence it is clear that the conspiracy theorists are wrong.

I did that but to me the official side story looks like a comic book with a billionaire genius who hates us and lives in a cave and used to work for
the good guys, but he switched over to the dark side. And every time they almost capture him, he mysteriously gets away, and leaves behind a
threatening tape.
I'm glad Obama finally canceled that ridiculous Osama Bin Laden comic book..

As soon as something that contradicts the OS appears on YouTube it becomes lies made by 17 year olds..

Hey OtherSideOfTheCoin, Am I right?

No as soon as something that is stacked full of errors attempt to contradict the OS that’s when I start to question the credibility of the
source.

People on ATS need to get over this absurd believe that just because something on the internet appears to support you theorists does not make it
correct. It’s not just you, I see this thread after thread with member after member unable to critique their sources. There is a chronic lack of
critical thinking on ATS, people see a source that says something like “Obama is really Osama” and you will have a thread with the title
“evidence” in it, with total disregard of the fact the author is micky mouse.

This thread is a perfect example, we have a OP who by his own admission has a “desire” to believe 9/11 was in inside job. To justify this desire
he has presented us with a documentary that supports his believe that Al-QA’ida does not exist, for if it did then 9/11 would not be a inside job.
It doesn’t matter that the video is full of errors and inconsistencies all that matters is that it supports the OP already predetermined believes.
It only results in threads like this, threads that are quite frankly just factually wrong.

Just imagine if in August 2001 the Iraqi military successfully launched chemical weapons at Americans in Saudi Arabia....and maybe an incident
developed between the Sauds and the US over it??

They could never tell the truth until the guys who were exposed to chemical weapons eventually all succumbed to their exposures......nobody would want
to pay them over what was done to them....liability.

The chemical weapons were made in USA and given to Iraq back when we were buds. Corporations/lawyers/lobbyists would all be pushing for the truth to
be silenced so they get to keep their money.

You are not addressing any of the points I am making, all my facts still stand. I am trying to provide educated responses and highlight the errors in
your sources, yet all you appear to be capable of is juvenile responses.

And can you please tell me when Ramzi Bin al-Shibh was granted a Visa because I thought it was refused 4 times.

This thread is a perfect example, we have a OP who by his own admission has a “desire” to believe 9/11 was in inside job. To justify this desire
he has presented us with a documentary that supports his believe that Al-QA’ida does not exist, for if it did then 9/11 would not be a inside job.
It doesn’t matter that the video is full of errors and inconsistencies all that matters is that it supports the OP already predetermined believes.
It only results in threads like this, threads that are quite frankly just factually wrong.

Again, your blatantly avoiding all of my points, for example; you said before that the hijacker who was refused a visa then got it two weeks later
when I challenged you by pointing out that the visa was refused 4 times and in the he never got it, you have nothing to say other than point me to a
stupid book.

what is the point in you creating a thread unless you are going to participate in a debate on the topic

If you are out of your depth when it comes to debating with me just say so there is no point it trying to argue with me if we are on two different
levels.

Yeah you're right he was denied four times. Maybe it's because he isn't very bright.. I mean the guy thought it was a good idea to wright
everything down in his diary. Plus somebody had to go to Guantánamo.

If you are out of your depth when it comes to debating with me just say so there is no point it trying to argue with me if we are on two different
levels.

We tried debating in the past. The only thing you were able to tell me was that you understand the history of Islamic Terrorism but it would be too
much for you to type in order to explain it. So I'm really not interested in debating with you at all.

I posted this thread to point out another coincidence that most of the hijackers were given a visa at the same US consulate were the CIA were rubber
stamping visa's in the 1980's (according to a whistle-blower). But you think that if a whistle blower is not murdered by the CIA it means that he is
full of crap.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.